Then why the review videos show MBP's with SSD twice faster than the HDD MBP's?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shVhpKnzfp4&feature=player_embedded
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Prepare to flame: A more realistic 2012 MBP predictions
- Thread starter Prodo123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then why the review videos show MBP's with SSD twice faster than the HDD MBP's?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shVhpKnzfp4&feature=player_embedded
Wrong, professionals want speed. Time is priceless.
And buying an External Hard Drive isn't that expensive and fits very well the storing necessities.
Professionals usually want both, speed and capacity. Speed means more money, but you also need something to store your data in.
Here is a test with SSD as a Photoshop scratch disk, the gains are pretty substantial. However, if you have hundreds of GBs, or even several TBs of data, SSDs are way too expensive. Hence HDs are needed for storage.
I would say SSD+HD is the best possible setup. External HD is not as convenient, especially if it's USB 2.0. Thunderbolt devices are still very limited and expensive, so not necessarily an option for everyone. Sure, if you have TBs, then an external is needed but for more frequently used files, an internal HD along with an SSD is the sweet spot.
But you think the next MBP's will bring a mix between both?
Maybe SDD's for the booting and the HDD's for the storing! (don't even know if such is possible).
Try comparing Maya performance with and without a SSD. You will see little to no performance difference.
SSDs are faster than HDDs, but there's many kind of "speed" involved.
R/W speed is how fast your computer can read and write data.
Processing speed is how fast your computer can process data.
Most average, everyday processes like web browsing and opening apps are dependent on the R/W speed. For example, you're reading files when you open a program. Since SSDs have a faster R/W speed than hard drives, it will speed up most average tasks.
Most professional applications such as Final Cut Pro is more about processing data. Here, a faster CPU and GPU (central/graphics PROCESSING unit) will be more useful than a SSD.
It might be a possibility, but seeing how OS X handles mounted drives, it may make managing and organizing data much harder.
It's certainly a possibility, but I wouldn't bet on it. If the stuff I've been hearing lately is correct, we should see a huge SSD price cut early next year. Can't really say anything else, yet.
Then the processor is way more important for the computer speed?
By the way, and sorry for the ignorance, but what is R/W?
Read/Write.
As for what's more important, it depends on the task. If it's highly CPU-dependent, then yes, the processor is more important. If it's disk-dependent, then an SSD will suit you better.
Okay, I fully agree with 1. Still doesn't mean that apple will not do it, if you believe any of the rumors.
2. Sorry, but that depends a lot on what you define as a professional. I use my mac for work, and while I of course benefit a lot from faster compile and execution times for code, I'm also looking forward to faster application launch times and faster loading and saving of large files.
Finally with USB 3.0 an external 7200 HDD will be as fast as an internal one, even without those clumsy thunderbolt devices.
I can see them keeping the 5400 drives if they can't offer reasonably sized SSDs in the base layout.
3. Who says that? Just because they got sandy bridge first? Well maybe it makes sense to test the new technology on the Pro users before throwing it on the mass market.
Anyways, I'm just speculating without much of a basis.
Absolutely no 1920x1200 in a 15". I don't think we'll ever see that. It would be way too small. It's close to being too small on the 17" as it is.
Never say never. There's already a 6.1" with 2560x1600... You just need software to support the high PPI.
It's available as option for the Lenovo thinkpad T520:
15.6" FHD (1920 x 1080) LED Backlit Anti-Glare Display, Mobile Broadband Ready
The basic configuration has a 1600x900 screen (also comes with SSD and other nice stuff, but that's not the point... ah, if it would run OSX...)
boot time does not equal performance. Once the program, etc is loaded into the ram, there is no speed difference. It really depends on what you are testing.
Bigger AC power supply (100W) and bigger battery - with Sandy Bridge, only the 17" MBP stands up to processor-intensive tasks. The 15" throttles down because the wattage isn't there. The 17" model is also underpowered energywise, but not as badly, hence it - despite having the same CPU and GPU as the high-end 15" being able to do better in performance tests.
And if they can do a better job at applying thermal paste as well... anything to keep heat down will only help users who use MBPs as desktop replacements. -- AND, as that site proves, the unibody design isn't that bad when proper thermal paste application gets load temps from 93C to a far healthier 82C.
And, here it comes: Blu-Ray! (I may as well incorporate one "you know it's never going to happen" possibility...)
I'd keep the price points the same as well. Maybe $100 less across the board, but now that I've seen a few high-end Windows laptops, Apple's 17" entry is fairly competitive.
And if they can do a better job at applying thermal paste as well... anything to keep heat down will only help users who use MBPs as desktop replacements. -- AND, as that site proves, the unibody design isn't that bad when proper thermal paste application gets load temps from 93C to a far healthier 82C.
And, here it comes: Blu-Ray! (I may as well incorporate one "you know it's never going to happen" possibility...)
I'd keep the price points the same as well. Maybe $100 less across the board, but now that I've seen a few high-end Windows laptops, Apple's 17" entry is fairly competitive.
Does the 17'' have a better power supply? I thought it was the same.
Ivy Bridge is supposed to reduce power consumption also under load, so maybe they can keep the 85W... although 100W would be better, so it can actually fill up the battery while doing some medium load work.
I was always hoping for Blu-ray, their hatred for it is stupid...
at least until 2tb ssds cost $80
I'm hoping for the OCZ Octane 1tb to cost $1500 or less, which should help push down the $$ for meager 256gb ssds.
The possibility of 2x 1tb SSDs raid 0 in a MBP is enough to give me wet nightmares.
No more fans constantly kicking on just to handle the screen saver/harddrives struggling to do their job.
It would be enough to handle any work in progress, and you just dump the files/backups to externals when you need to.
But the stupid optical drive needs to die, or at the very least have a working sata III cable!!
Uhh the 17" should definitely have 4x ram slots.
You know, now that (most) software has actually caught up (64bit) and can take all the ram you can throw at it.
Mobile Quadro option? (i'm sure it'd destroy the battery)
Bulky Battery option? (so mobile workstations don't die in 2 hours)
Then and only then would it be acceptable for them to start neglecting the Mac Pro line.
I'd also like a design that doesn't dig into my wrist, and isn't stupid brushed aluminum.
Does the empty space to both sides of the trackpad bother anyone else??
The 13" MBP is currently the coolest because of the least ____ space.
Why eat up the sides of the design of 15" and 17" with garbage speakers?
Apple needs to team up with Bose. For the MBP and for a sick no-glasses 3d 30" iMac w/Bose sound bar built in
My testicles are dripping just thinking about it.
The 13" MBP is currently the coolest because of the least ____ space.
Why eat up the sides of the design of 15" and 17" with garbage speakers?
Apple needs to team up with Bose. For the MBP and for a sick no-glasses 3d 30" iMac w/Bose sound bar built in
My testicles are dripping just thinking about it.
I agree - a case redesign is probably part of the deal.
Not sure here - SSD's are still expensive compared to HDDs, and for many users really don't offer a big enough advantage to justify the higher costs. I think they'll remain mainly a BTO item, a;though you may see a SSD MBP as part of Apple's in store lineup. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple built some sort of hybrid SSD setup on the MB that used a HDD for storage.
SSDs are the future, however.
I think the ODD is here to stay for a while at least - despite the opinions expressed by many here. Until a viable replacement exists (and no the cloud isn't that, at least not yet) it'll hang around.
I agree - as evidenced by Apple's work on making the ODD thinner through a complete rethink of its mechanicals. I could see them cutting it's thickness nearly in half - while Apple has some impressive designers they also have some pretty smart engineers as well.
Read the news a bit more thouroughly. That solar CPU had nothing to do with Haswell. It was an old Pentium based test chip with the sole purpose of running an entire chip at a V very close to the theoritcal limit of the transistor.
The whole Haswell new has been widely misinterpreted and mixed up with loads of other news. Stop spreading such rumors.
A 15" Air will help anybody who doesn't want gaming but a bigger screen and a mobile notebook. Even running Sandy Bridge that would be a nice addition. IB will get more preformance and Haswell will make those ULV/LV CPUs mainstream that is it.
2. I am a Developer and for work I don't need a whole lot of space. I only need space for private stuff (movies, pictures, music). Java classes and compiled jar/war files don't need a whole lot of space.
Also there is Intel SRT coming and a default 32/64GB SSD SRT cache with whatever HDD you want to add would be a near perfect solution. Getting the best of both worlds in performance/price and indiviual needs.
3. That is just plain wrong and I supported that a few times in this forum. I am getting tired of it. Stop spreading so much half backed nonsense and read up and inform yourself properly.
They didn't get Sandy Bridge first. Acer, HP and Asus all launched their first Sandy Bridge notebooks to market mid January. Apple came 28th Feb. They were almost 1.5 months behind. The year before Acer bought the lions share of the first lots from Intel and Apple was really late.
That would be good news and speed up SSD adoption.
A few thoughts:
1) If the cuts come early next year, I'd expect the fall refresh to see the benefits. Given the supply chain restraints, even with Apple's buying habits, it may be a bit too early for a spring refresh to get significantly lower prices for SSDs ordered now.
2) Even with hugh price cuts, unless they really eviscerate the price, SSDs are still at a significant price disadvantage to HDDs. That means, in order to maintain margins, Apple would have to add a a not insignificant premium to MBPs with SSDs with large storage space. So, I'd guess you'd see large SSDs at the high end of the reange, maybe as a BTO, where price sensitivity is less; and migrate down as prices drop.
3)I find the idea of a hybrid model - small SSD to store the OS and programs / files and an HDD for large storage capacity. The SSD could act as a scratch disk as well - when a program opens a large file, the OS could transparently move it to the SSD and take advantage of the faster R/W to speed up access. It could also, like the Momentus XT, give priority to recently loaded files for storage. I would not take a large SSD to do this - which could keep the overall cost down.
I recently put a 32GB SSD in an old MB that is used primarily for web surfing, email, and office like tasks - the faster boot times helped because it is used daily but not left on; and 32 GB was enough to create a usable machine for a casual user. Am Apple developed hybrid might just be a good price / performance trade off. I probably won't happen but is worth considering.
the real issue, to me, is how early in the deign cycle does Apple get access to Intel's future designs? I'd guess they are pretty high on the list, along with other major OEMs. That they were only a few months behind tells me they were given access at the same time, and certainly not later. First? Hard to say, but really immaterial.
Apple has never been about getting the latest and greatest out first. technical specs, benchmarks, and measurebation is not what their products are about; Windows PC manufacturers use specs to differentiate themselves much like camera makers use MP since they really are very close to a commodity market otherwise. Specs are a convenient way to create a perception of being "better" in consumers minds; even if they are really not that good of a way to judge relative value of the products.
Apple chose to differentiate its products in other ways, and so sets its own timetable on when to launch a new product.
I would expect something like a 64GB SSD for boot files and a normal complement of hard drive options for storage. They also could give the option for either the SSD boot drive or an optical drive. This would placate many of the people complaining about the lack of an optical drive. I would also expect the low resolution screen on the 15" to be dropped in favor of the high res screen. Of course tis change would probably require a change in form factor. I would really like apple to put in better graphics cards. The ones currently available are only just adiquite.
I'm pretty sure they'll be removing the ODD very soon. Considering this year they've wiped off the remnant usages CDs in standard macs (Mac App Store for software and OS, thumb drive if you really want a physical OS install), it'd be fitting for them to wipe ODDs in 2012. I'd say definitely gone in 13", and likely gone in 15 and 17".
Also, if they're looking to bring out the new Apple TV in a year or two, they'd better start putting more effort into killing DVDs.
Also, if they're looking to bring out the new Apple TV in a year or two, they'd better start putting more effort into killing DVDs.